Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is nice to see the Minister of State. He is very welcome. On behalf of my party, I welcome this significant legislation. The establishment of a corporate enforcement authority as a stand-alone entity replacing the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement is an extremely welcome step. We are on record as having welcomed this on more than one occasion. The ODCE has worked hard within the remit it has been given in recent times but, unfortunately, in the course of its work it has often suffered from a lack of funding and resources on the one hand and a lack of adequate powers on the other. It is ultimately these shortcomings that precipitated the proposal for the establishment of a stand-alone corporate enforcement authority as far back as 2017. This move was proposed by the then Government in November of that year as part of a series of measures intended to address white-collar crime.

The establishment of this new agency is, in part, a response to severe criticism by Judge John Aylmer of the conduct of the ODCE in the prosecution of the former chairman of Anglo Irish Bank. If this new agency is to be able to investigate and respond to complex breaches of company law then, unlike the ODCE, it must have the necessary funding, resources, powers and suitably qualified experts in accountancy, information technology and corporate enforcement in order to do that job effectively. The need for such resources and funding came to the fore when pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill was conducted earlier this year by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I was a member of that committee and I pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Quinlivan, who has been chasing this issue for a number of years, in fairness.

There is a perception among the public, which is fairly well founded, that corruption and so-called white collar crime are not adequately detected and punished. The lack of legislation to tackle corporate and economic crime, and the underfunding and under-resourcing of the agencies investigating white collar crime, has been de facto Government policy for decades. More than a decade and three successive Governments later, the lack of appetite to legislate for, regulate and properly tackle corporate and economic crime is genuinely shocking. The historical underfunding of the ODCE is a political decision. The office gets its funding directly from the Government. If that funding is insufficient, that represents a political failure.

In 2007, the accounting firm RSM Robson Rhodes estimated that Ireland was losing €2.5 billion a year from economic crime. I like the phrase my colleague, Deputy O'Reilly, used in the Dáil, "Economic cheats cheat us all". If that figure is applied to the past 14 years, that is a potential loss of €35 billion to the Irish economy. The economic and social cost of corruption and white-collar crime far outweigh other forms of crime, yet they have consistently received far less funding resources and political attention from successive Governments. It is time the State takes this crime seriously. As the ODCE transitions to a stand-alone corporate enforcement authority, it is imperative not only that it is given additional funding and resources but additional powers to help keep pace with technological advancements, such as seizing data and information that is stored in the cloud.

I will raise a couple of concerns but, to be clear, we support this Bill. I have a concern in respect of sections 944AE(3)(b) and 944AE(3)(c). Why should a director who is sanctioned by the authorities should be able to escape having his or her publicised if such a publication "would jeopardise the stability of financial markets"? Furthermore, section 944AE(3)(c) states that a director who is sanctioned shall not have his or her name published if it "would cause disproportionate damage to the relevant director." These sections seem to offer an almost unlimited get-out for relevant directors who commit offences. I do not think that is the intention, but having this get-out-of-jail card is not a good idea. There is no reason these provisions should be included to allow directors to get away from having their names made public. There is no mechanism for a young working-class man or woman to escape his or her name being splashed in the local newspaper, if a court finds that person guilty of being in possession of a joint, or some other crime. It seems to be a case of the Government looking after its own. I hope the Minister of State will address that particular concern.

I echo what Senator Malcolm Byrne mentioned about Professor Deirdre Ahern's recommendation on the number of members of the new authority. The joint committee recommended between two and five members. I would like to hear the Minister of State's response on that matter.

One of the recommendations the committee made that merits further consideration is the suggestion that non-Garda staff who have expert skills be allowed to attend interviews. This would, in certain circumstances, allow additional knowledge and skills to be available during an interview. I appreciate this would require an alteration to custody regulations. I suggest a feasibility study of such an adjustment be conducted as soon as possible.

We very much welcome this Bill. We recognise the good work that has been carried out and that there is a good start in terms of additional resources but, as others have said, we need to keep this under constant review.